2

This question already has an answer here:

I compile the same tex using two commands:

latexmk --pvc --pdfps ./main.tex

and

latexmk --pvc --pdf ./main.tex

Then view both pdf files using evince, at the same scale (170%). The result using --pdfps (on the left) has heavier font that the result using --pdf (on the right):

enter image description here

Do you know why?

Update:
Here comes a minimal example:

$ cat main.tex
\documentclass{article}


\usepackage{amsthm}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amsmath}
\usepackage{amssymb}


\title{Compare}

\begin{document}
\maketitle
$$
a_\textit{ivanov} \wedge b_\mathit{sidorov} \rightarrow \text{petrov}^{2^{x}}
$$

\end{document}

Running pdffonts gives:

$ pdffonts ./pdf.pdf
name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
JADGUW+CMR17                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       4  0
GFYLUX+CMR12                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       5  0
IEHANU+CMMI10                        Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       6  0
WLJBIP+CMTI7                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       7  0
GHNOGE+CMSY10                        Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       8  0
UWWUVN+CMR10                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no       9  0
RKDUWA+CMR7                          Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no      10  0
EUVFVQ+CMMI5                         Type 1            Builtin          yes yes no      11  0

$ pdffonts ./ps.pdf
name                                 type              encoding         emb sub uni object ID
------------------------------------ ----------------- ---------------- --- --- --- ---------
RRWQTJ+CMMI5                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      22  0
EBFDMR+CMR7                          Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      20  0
AFJYHC+CMR10                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      18  0
ILWBCN+CMSY10                        Type 1C           Custom           yes yes no      16  0
OFQOVE+CMTI7                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      14  0
IEOASN+CMMI10                        Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      12  0
LWIAFV+CMR12                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no      10  0
ZGILVG+CMR17                         Type 1C           WinAnsi          yes yes no       8  0

The --pdfps version uses Type 1C fonts, which may be the reason...

marked as duplicate by Community Sep 11 '18 at 8:47

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • 1
    what does the output of pdffonts utility report? – David Carlisle Sep 10 '18 at 15:39
  • 1
    We probably need to know about which fonts you're using, please provide a minimal example. Also, have you checked which fonts are actually used in the two pdfs? (pdffonts on Linux can help) – daleif Sep 10 '18 at 15:41
  • added no-so-minimal example and info about the fonts. The fonts type (type 1 vs type 1c) differs. Maybe that is the reason. – Ayrat Sep 10 '18 at 16:36
  • 1
    Type 1C fonts can contain "better" hinting data which is more appropriate for low-resolution display devices like computer screens. You will probably find that if you zoom in, the differences disappear, and they also disappear if you print the files (assuming you have a modern printer, not an ancient low-resolution one!) – alephzero Sep 10 '18 at 18:08
  • @alephzero perhaps make that an answer? – David Carlisle Sep 10 '18 at 19:04
1

I flagged my question as duplicate of the following: XeLaTeX font rendering tend to be slightly bolder compared to PDFlatex which has the excellent answer: https://tex.stackexchange.com/a/337122/18193

The comment by @alephzero helped to find this out, thanks! As @alephzero wrote, Type 1C is a (lossless) compacted version of Type 1 fonts, but with better "hinting" (hinting is used at low resolutions). The difference disappears, as predicted by @alephzero, at higher zoom (300%, no noticeable difference), and on the printed versions of the documents.

Also, my version of evince seems to have different rendering engines for Type 1 and Type 1C fonts (see the above answer link), with Type 1C rendered producing a bolder result. The above linked answer also noted that there is no noticeable difference since Ubuntu 16.10.

Also related questions and sources:

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.